Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38922317›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2024

Designing studies and reviews to produce informative, trustworthy evidence about complex interventions in rehabilitation: a narrative review and commentary.

William M Levack, Douglas P Gross, Rachelle A Martin, Susanna Every-Palmer, Carlotte Kiekens, Claudio Cordani, Stefano Negrini, Participants in the 5th Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

William M LevackDepartment of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Douglas P GrossDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Rachelle A MartinDepartment of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Susanna Every-PalmerDepartment of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Carlotte KiekensIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Claudio CordaniIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy - claudio.cordani@unimi.it.
Stefano NegriniIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Participants in the 5th Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to Cochrane Rehabilitation's recently published definition for research purposes, rehabilitation is inherently complex. Rehabilitation teams frequently implement multiple strategies concurrently, draw on input from a range of different health professionals, target multiple outcomes, and personalize therapeutic plans. The success of rehabilitation lies not only in the specific therapies employed, but also in how they are delivered, when they are delivered, and the capability and willingness of patients to engage in them. In 2021, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) released the second major update of its framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions. This framework has direct relevance to the development and implementation of evidence-based practice in the field of rehabilitation. While previous iterations of this framework positioned complex interventions as anything that involved multiple components, multiple people, multiple settings, multiple targets of effect, and behavior change, this latest framework expanded on this concept of complexity to also include the characteristics and influence of the context in which interventions occur. The revised MRC-NIHR framework presents complex intervention research as comprising the following four inter-related and overlapping phases: 1) development or identification of the intervention; 2) feasibility; 3) evaluation; and 4) implementation, with different methods and tools required to address each of these phases. This paper provides an overview of the MRC-NIHR framework and its application to rehabilitation, with examples from past research. Rehabilitation researchers are encouraged to learn about the MRC-NIHR framework and its application. Funders of rehabilitation research are also encouraged to place greater emphasis on supporting studies that involve the right design to address key uncertainties in rehabilitation clinical practice. This will require investment into a broader range of types of research than simply individual-level randomized controlled trials. Rehabilitation research can both learn from and contribute to future iterations of the MRC-NIHR framework as it is an excellent environment for exploring complexity in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Research DesignHumansRehabilitationRehabilitation Research

Identifiers

PMID38922317
PMCPMC11780669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.